Seahawks vs 49ers Match Player Stats

When people search for seahawks vs 49ers match player stats, they usually want more than a final score. They want to know which players actually shaped the game, how the quarterbacks performed, who led the rushing and receiving categories, and why the numbers look so different from what the pregame matchup suggested. The January 18, 2026 NFC Divisional Playoff between the Seattle Seahawks and San Francisco 49ers provides a particularly clear example because Seattle won 41-6 while controlling the game in offense, defense, and special teams.

The final score tells only part of the story. Seattle finished with 175 rushing yards, three rushing touchdowns, 281 total yards, and no turnovers. San Francisco produced 108 rushing yards and 128 passing yards, but the 49ers also committed three turnovers and failed to score a touchdown. Kenneth Walker III was the standout offensive player for Seattle, while Rashid Shaheed created the game’s first major swing with a 95-yard kickoff return touchdown.

This breakdown examines the player numbers behind the result and explains what those figures mean rather than simply repeating a box score.

Seahawks vs 49ers Match Player Stats

The game took place on January 18, 2026, as an NFC Divisional Playoff matchup at Lumen Field in Seattle. The Seahawks entered at 14-3 overall and 6-2 at home, while the 49ers entered at 12-5 with a 7-2 road record.

Seattle won every quarter except none. The Seahawks scored 17 points in the first quarter, seven in the second, 10 in the third, and seven in the fourth. San Francisco scored six points in the second quarter and was held scoreless in the other three quarters.

Category	San Francisco 49ers	Seattle Seahawks
Final score	6	41
First quarter	0	17
Second quarter	6	7
Third quarter	0	10
Fourth quarter	0	7
Passing yards	128	106 net
Rushing yards	108	175
Rushing touchdowns	0	3
Turnovers	3	0
Sacks allowed	2	2
Third downs	6/12	4/10
Total yards	236	281

One important detail deserves attention: Seattle’s listed team passing total of 106 yards reflects net passing after sacks, while Sam Darnold’s individual passing total was 124 yards. That distinction explains why the team passing figure can be lower than the quarterback’s gross passing yards.

The most important statistical difference was not passing production. It was efficiency, ball security, rushing success, and the ability to turn good field position into points.

The Game Was Decided Before the Box Score Looked Close

Seattle did not need an enormous passing performance to win this game.

That is one of the biggest lessons from the numbers.

Sam Darnold completed 12 of 17 passes for 124 yards, one touchdown, and no interceptions. His passer rating was 110.9. Those are efficient numbers, but they are not the kind of statistics normally associated with a 35-point playoff victory.

The explanation is that Seattle’s offense did not ask Darnold to carry the game.

The Seahawks established the run, protected the football, generated explosive plays, and repeatedly put San Francisco in difficult situations. That made the quarterback’s job much easier.

San Francisco faced the opposite situation.

Brock Purdy completed 15 of 27 passes for 140 yards, with no touchdowns and one interception. He was also sacked twice for a combined 16 yards. Mac Jones entered later and completed two of four passes for four yards.

Purdy’s 140 passing yards were higher than Darnold’s 124, but San Francisco still lost by 35 points.

That is a useful reminder that passing yards alone are a poor way to judge quarterback performance.

Sam Darnold’s Efficient Play

Darnold’s performance is interesting because his raw yardage was modest while his efficiency was strong.

He completed:

• 12 of 17 passes
• 124 passing yards
• 7.3 yards per attempt
• 1 touchdown
• 0 interceptions
• 2 sacks for 18 yards
• 110.9 passer rating
• 63.1 QBR

His 12 completions accounted for a 70.6 percent completion rate.

More importantly, Seattle did not need him to force throws. The Seahawks could run the football and allow the passing game to complement it.

That is exactly the type of quarterback performance that can disappear when readers focus only on total passing yards.

Darnold’s biggest statistical advantage over Purdy was not volume. It was the combination of efficiency and ball security.

He did not throw an interception.

San Francisco did.

That difference became enormous because Seattle’s defense was already creating pressure and limiting offensive opportunities.

Brock Purdy’s Numbers Tell a Different Story

Purdy’s final passing line was:

• 15 completions
• 27 attempts
• 140 yards
• 5.2 yards per attempt
• 0 touchdowns
• 1 interception
• 2 sacks
• 54.6 passer rating
• 38.4 QBR

At first glance, 140 yards might look respectable. In context, it was not enough.

His 5.2 yards per attempt shows how difficult it was for San Francisco to generate consistent passing efficiency. The offense also failed to produce a passing touchdown.

Purdy did provide an unusual contribution as a runner. He carried the ball five times for 37 yards, averaging 7.4 yards per carry, with an 18-yard long run.

That made him San Francisco’s leading rusher by yardage.

It is an important detail because Christian McCaffrey, normally one of the central engines of the 49ers offense, finished with only 35 rushing yards.

Kenneth Walker III Was the Offensive Difference-Maker

The clearest individual story in the game was Kenneth Walker III.

Walker carried the ball 19 times for 116 yards and three touchdowns. He averaged 6.1 yards per carry and produced a long run of 15 yards.

He also caught three passes for 29 yards.

That gave him 145 yards from scrimmage.

The three rushing touchdowns were particularly important because they demonstrated Seattle’s ability to finish drives. Moving the football between the 20-yard lines is one thing. Converting that movement into touchdowns is another.

Walker did both.

His rushing line also reveals how efficiently Seattle was moving the ball on the ground. The Seahawks ran 33 times for 175 yards, averaging 5.3 yards per carry.

That is a substantial advantage over San Francisco’s 108 rushing yards on 27 carries.

The difference was 67 rushing yards.

Seattle also scored three rushing touchdowns.

San Francisco scored none.

Walker’s Most Important Number Was Not Just 116

The 116 rushing yards are the headline statistic, but the efficiency behind them is more revealing.

NFL Next Gen Stats analysis highlighted that Walker produced a 63.2 percent success rate against the 49ers and was especially effective running outside the tackles. He gained 79 yards on 13 carries when running outside, including all three of his touchdowns.

That tells us something tactical.

Seattle was not simply handing Walker the ball and hoping he would create something. The running game was attacking areas where he could use his speed and space.

Walker also recorded 94 yards and two touchdowns on 15 carries against stacked or neutral boxes with seven or more defenders. That is especially significant because it means San Francisco was not necessarily able to solve the running game simply by committing more defenders to it.

His 13.51 mph average speed at the line of scrimmage, reported by NFL Next Gen Stats, was also the fastest of his career.

The broader lesson is that rushing success is not only about the offensive line winning every snap. Scheme, leverage, blocking angles, defensive alignment, and ball-carrier acceleration all matter.

Christian McCaffrey Was Held in Check

Christian McCaffrey carried 11 times for 35 yards.

His average was just 3.2 yards per carry, and his longest run was eight yards.

He was more productive as a receiver, catching five passes for 39 yards on six targets.

That gave him 74 yards from scrimmage.

For a player capable of changing a game through both rushing and receiving, 74 total yards without a touchdown was not enough to keep San Francisco competitive.

The contrast with Walker was stark.

Walker:

• 116 rushing yards
• 29 receiving yards
• 3 rushing touchdowns
• 145 total yards

McCaffrey:

• 35 rushing yards
• 39 receiving yards
• 0 touchdowns
• 74 total yards

Neither comparison should be interpreted as a simple statement about which player is better. The surrounding game situations were completely different.

Seattle had the lead early and continued creating favorable rushing situations. San Francisco was forced to respond to a large deficit.

That context matters when evaluating individual performance.

San Francisco’s Receiving Numbers

San Francisco’s passing offense produced 17 completions for 128 gross passing yards.

Jake Tonges led the team in receiving production with five catches for 59 yards on six targets. He averaged 11.8 yards per reception and recorded a long catch of 16 yards.

McCaffrey also caught five passes, producing 39 yards.

Jauan Jennings finished with two receptions for 23 yards, including a 19-yard catch.

The problem was not simply that San Francisco lacked receptions.

The problem was that those receptions rarely translated into sustained scoring drives.

The 49ers finished with zero receiving touchdowns.

They also had 27 team targets and only 17 receptions.

That means 10 targets did not result in completed passes.

Against a playoff defense that was already limiting explosive plays, that inefficiency became costly.

Seattle’s Receiving Production

Seattle’s passing attack was smaller in volume but efficient.

The Seahawks recorded 12 receptions for 124 yards and one touchdown.

Cooper Kupp led the team with five receptions for 60 yards. He averaged 12.0 yards per catch and caught all five of his targets.

That is a perfect 5-for-5 target-to-reception line.

Kenneth Walker III added three catches for 29 yards, giving him an additional dimension beyond his rushing performance.

Jaxon Smith-Njigba caught three passes for 19 yards and scored Seattle’s receiving touchdown.

Jaxon Smith-Njigba’s numbers are a good example of why touchdown production can matter more than raw yardage in a game like this.

He did not lead Seattle in receiving yards.

He did not have the most receptions.

But his touchdown helped Seattle convert its offensive opportunities into points.

Cooper Kupp Quietly Had a Major Role

Kupp’s five receptions for 60 yards may not look spectacular compared with some of the larger receiving games seen in the NFL.

But the efficiency is notable.

He caught every target.

His average of 12 yards per reception meant Seattle was getting meaningful yardage without needing a high-volume passing attack.

Kupp’s presence also gave Darnold a dependable option when the Seahawks did decide to throw.

This is one of the more useful ways to read player statistics: look at the relationship between opportunities and production.

A receiver with five targets and five catches is producing differently from a receiver with 10 targets and five catches, even if the final reception totals are identical.

Special Teams Changed the Entire Game

It is impossible to fully understand this matchup without discussing Rashid Shaheed.

Shaheed returned the opening kickoff 95 yards for a touchdown.

That immediately gave Seattle a 7-0 lead.

The game was only beginning, but the psychological and tactical impact was substantial.

San Francisco’s offense had not even taken a meaningful offensive snap before it was already trailing.

Seattle then scored another 10 points in the first quarter, finishing the opening period with a 17-0 advantage.

Shaheed also recorded two rushing attempts for 27 yards, averaging 13.5 yards per carry, although the kickoff return was clearly his defining contribution.

His two kickoff returns totaled 126 yards, an average of 63 yards per return.

The 95-yard touchdown return was the explosive special teams play that set the tone.

In playoff football, hidden-yardage categories can have an outsized effect because possessions are valuable and opponents have less room for error.

Seattle’s Defense Created the Real Separation

Seattle’s defensive numbers show why San Francisco never found a way back into the game.

The Seahawks recorded:

• 66 total tackles
• 38 solo tackles
• 2 sacks
• 4 tackles for loss
• 7 passes defended
• 5 quarterback hits
• 1 interception
• 1 defensive touchdown

The 49ers’ defense, by comparison, recorded 60 tackles, 33 solo tackles, two sacks, six tackles for loss, no passes defended, and three quarterback hits.

The raw sack numbers were identical.

The defensive impact was not.

Seattle forced three turnovers overall and also stopped San Francisco on three fourth-down attempts.

That is an enormous difference in possession value.

The 49ers were not simply stopped by one spectacular defensive play. Their offense repeatedly failed to finish possessions.

Ernest Jones IV Made a Key Defensive Play

Ernest Jones IV recorded Seattle’s interception.

His stat line included one interception, no return yards, and no defensive touchdown.

While the interception itself was a single statistic, its value was greater because San Francisco was already struggling to generate points.

Turnovers become more damaging when the offense on the other side is efficient and protecting the football.

That was exactly the situation Seattle created.

The Seahawks committed no turnovers.

San Francisco committed three fumbles and lost two of them, while also throwing one interception.

That produced a three-to-zero turnover margin in Seattle’s favor.

Turnovers Explain Much of the 41-6 Score

A 35-point playoff victory can tempt readers to assume one team simply overwhelmed the other in every statistical category.

That is not quite what happened.

Seattle had 281 total yards compared with San Francisco’s 236.

That is a 45-yard difference.

The much larger difference came from what each team did with its possessions.

Seattle:

• 0 turnovers
• 3 rushing touchdowns
• 1 passing touchdown
• 41 points

San Francisco:

• 3 turnovers
• 0 touchdowns
• 2 field goals
• 6 points

This is why football analysis cannot be reduced to yardage.

A team can gain respectable yardage and still lose badly if those yards do not become points.

San Francisco averaged 4.6 yards per pass attempt as a team and 4.0 yards per rush. Seattle averaged 7.3 net passing yards per attempt in the supplied passing figures and 5.3 yards per rushing attempt.

More importantly, Seattle consistently finished possessions.

Fourth Downs Were Another Major Story

San Francisco’s offense was stopped on fourth down three times.

That matters because fourth-down attempts often reveal a team’s willingness to continue drives instead of settling for punts or field goals.

Seattle’s defense successfully ended three possessions that the 49ers were trying to extend.

The 49ers did convert six of 12 third-down opportunities, so their third-down percentage was not disastrous.

But third-down success did not lead to enough points.

That distinction is important.

A team can convert third downs and still struggle if it cannot finish drives, protect the football, or create explosive plays.

A Quarter-by-Quarter Breakdown

First Quarter: Seattle Takes Control

Seattle scored 17 points in the opening quarter.

San Francisco scored zero.

The 95-yard kickoff return touchdown immediately put Seattle ahead. The Seahawks then added offensive points and established the type of game script they wanted.

From that point forward, San Francisco had to play from behind.

Second Quarter: San Francisco Finally Scores

The 49ers managed six points in the second quarter.

Seattle added another seven.

At halftime, Seattle led 24-6.

San Francisco had avoided complete offensive collapse on the scoreboard, but a 18-point halftime deficit meant the margin for error was already extremely small.

Third Quarter: Seattle Pulls Away

Seattle added 10 points in the third quarter.

San Francisco was held scoreless.

The game moved from difficult to nearly impossible for the 49ers because the Seahawks continued to run effectively while the 49ers could not generate touchdowns.

Fourth Quarter: Seattle Finishes the Job

The Seahawks added seven more points in the final quarter.

San Francisco again failed to score.

The final 41-6 result reflected not one dominant quarter but sustained control across the entire game.

What the Player Stats Reveal About the Matchup

The most useful insight from this game is that Seattle won through complementary football.

The offense did not need to throw 300 yards.

The defense did not need to record five or six sacks.

The special teams unit did not need multiple touchdowns.

Instead, each phase contributed something important.

Offense

Seattle ran for 175 yards and three touchdowns.

Defense

Seattle forced three turnovers and held San Francisco without a touchdown.

Special Teams

Shaheed returned the opening kickoff 95 yards for a touchdown.

That combination created a game in which every San Francisco mistake became more damaging.

The Most Important Individual Performances

If the game is reduced to its most influential players, several names stand out.

Kenneth Walker III

His 116 rushing yards and three touchdowns made him the central offensive figure.

His 29 receiving yards increased his total offensive contribution to 145 yards from scrimmage.

Rashid Shaheed

His 95-yard kickoff return touchdown gave Seattle an immediate advantage and helped establish the game’s tone.

Sam Darnold

His 12-of-17 passing performance with one touchdown and no interceptions was highly efficient.

Cooper Kupp

His five catches on five targets for 60 yards gave Seattle a reliable passing option.

Ernest Jones IV

His interception was part of a defensive performance that forced San Francisco into repeated mistakes.

Brock Purdy

Purdy’s 140 passing yards and 37 rushing yards showed that he still generated some individual production, but the interception, lack of passing touchdowns, and overall offensive inefficiency prevented San Francisco from keeping pace.

Why the Quarterback Comparison Needs Context

A basic comparison might look like this:

Statistic	Brock Purdy	Sam Darnold
Completions	15	12
Attempts	27	17
Passing yards	140	124
Yards per attempt	5.2	7.3
Passing TDs	0	1
Interceptions	1	0
Sacks	2	2
Passer rating	54.6	110.9
QBR	38.4	63.1

Purdy threw for 16 more yards.

Darnold produced the better efficiency.

That difference is exactly why a box-score comparison based solely on passing yards can be misleading.

Darnold needed fewer attempts because Seattle’s running game was working.

Purdy needed to create more because San Francisco fell behind early.

The scoreboard therefore changed the meaning of the passing statistics.

Why Seattle’s Running Game Was So Effective

Seattle averaged 5.3 yards per carry as a team.

That number matters because it means the Seahawks were not relying entirely on isolated explosive plays.

Walker averaged 6.1 yards per carry.

Shaheed averaged 13.5 yards on his two rushing attempts.

Zach Charbonnet added 20 yards on five carries.

Velus Jones Jr. had 10 yards on six carries.

The distribution shows that Seattle had multiple contributors, even though Walker was clearly the lead runner.

The offensive line and scheme also benefited from San Francisco having to respect the passing game and the threat of multiple skill players.

Once Seattle established the run, the 49ers had fewer opportunities to dictate the pace.

What San Francisco Could Not Solve

Three problems stand out from the statistics.

1. The 49ers Could Not Stop the Run

Seattle gained 175 rushing yards.

Walker alone produced 116.

Three rushing touchdowns followed.

2. San Francisco Lost the Turnover Battle

The 49ers turned the ball over three times.

Seattle turned it over zero times.

That is a three-possession advantage.

3. San Francisco Could Not Reach the End Zone

The 49ers scored only two field goals.

They never produced a touchdown.

In a playoff game, that is extremely difficult to overcome.

What Seattle Did Better Than the Raw Numbers Show

The final score makes the Seahawks’ performance look simple, but there was more sophistication behind it.

Seattle controlled the game’s tempo.

The Seahawks held the ball for 31:11 compared with 28:49 for San Francisco.

That is not a huge possession advantage, but it matters when combined with efficient rushing and turnover-free football.

Seattle also converted four of 10 third downs.

That was actually a lower conversion percentage than San Francisco’s six of 12.

Yet Seattle still dominated.

Again, the lesson is that isolated statistics need context.

San Francisco’s third-down percentage did not matter much because it could not convert those opportunities into touchdowns.

Understanding the Difference Between Volume and Efficiency

This game is a useful case study for anyone trying to interpret football statistics.

Volume tells you how much a player did.

Efficiency tells you how well the player performed with the opportunities available.

For example, Purdy had more passing yards than Darnold.

But Darnold averaged more yards per attempt, threw a touchdown, avoided interceptions, and produced a much higher passer rating.

Similarly, McCaffrey caught five passes, matching Tonges for the team lead in receptions.

But Tonges gained 59 yards while McCaffrey gained 39.

Walker had 19 rushing attempts and turned them into 116 yards and three touchdowns.

The numbers become much more useful when viewed as relationships rather than isolated totals.

A Closer Look at the Receiving Efficiency

Seattle’s receiving group combined for 12 receptions and 124 yards.

That works out to 10.3 yards per reception.

San Francisco’s receiving group combined for 17 receptions and 144 yards, or 8.5 yards per reception.

So San Francisco completed more passes and gained more receiving yards in total.

Yet Seattle’s average per reception was higher.

That again illustrates the difference between volume and efficiency.

The 49ers needed more completions to generate a similar amount of yardage.

Seattle generated more yardage per catch with fewer receptions.

The Special Teams Advantage Was Massive

Seattle’s kickoff return numbers deserve special attention.

The Seahawks recorded two kickoff returns for 126 yards, an average of 63.0 yards per return.

The long return was 95 yards, and it went for a touchdown.

San Francisco recorded five kickoff returns for 114 yards, averaging 22.8 yards per return.

That is a dramatic field-position difference.

Special teams often receives less attention than quarterback and running-back statistics, but this game demonstrates why it should not.

Seattle’s special teams unit immediately delivered seven points.

That is not merely field position.

That is a touchdown before the offense had to establish itself.

The Numbers That Best Explain the Victory

If only five statistics could be used to explain Seattle’s victory, these would be among the strongest:

1. 41-6 final score: The ultimate measure of points produced and prevented.
2. 175 rushing yards: Seattle controlled the ground game.
3. Three rushing touchdowns: The Seahawks finished drives on the ground.
4. Three turnovers forced: San Francisco repeatedly surrendered possessions.
5. 0 turnovers committed: Seattle protected every possession from a turnover.

These figures explain the game better than passing yards alone.

What Fantasy Football Readers Can Learn

Although this was a playoff game rather than a fantasy matchup, the player numbers still offer useful fantasy analysis.

Walker was the obvious standout because he combined rushing volume, efficiency, touchdowns, and receiving work.

Kupp benefited from reliable target conversion, catching all five of his targets.

McCaffrey remained involved as a receiver despite limited rushing production.

Purdy’s rushing yardage added value to his individual line, but the lack of passing touchdowns and the interception significantly reduced his overall fantasy appeal.

This is why fantasy evaluation often requires looking beyond the headline yardage.

Touchdowns, targets, receptions, rushing attempts, and efficiency can all change a player’s value.

What These Numbers Mean for Future Matchups

A single game should never be treated as proof that one team will always outperform another.

Football matchups are highly dependent on game plan, injuries, field position, turnovers, and game script.

Still, this particular performance revealed several structural strengths for Seattle.

The Seahawks demonstrated that they could:

• Win without high passing volume
• Generate explosive rushing plays
• Finish drives with rushing touchdowns
• Protect the football
• Create turnovers
• Win field position through special teams
• Pressure the quarterback without needing an overwhelming sack total

For San Francisco, the game highlighted the importance of offensive efficiency.

The 49ers had capable individual production, including Purdy’s 37 rushing yards and McCaffrey’s five receptions, but those numbers did not become enough points.

That conversion from production to scoring is where the matchup was ultimately decided.

How to Read Player Stats Without Misreading the Game

Anyone checking seahawks vs 49ers match player stats should start with the basic box score but should not stop there.

A better process is:

Step 1: Check the score by quarter

This tells you the game script.

Step 2: Check turnovers

Turnovers often explain why one team’s offensive numbers were used more effectively.

Step 3: Compare rushing efficiency

Look at carries, yards, average, and touchdowns.

Step 4: Compare quarterback efficiency

Do not rely only on passing yards. Include completion percentage, yards per attempt, touchdowns, interceptions, sacks, and passer rating.

Step 5: Examine skill-player usage

Targets and carries help show which players were actually central to the game plan.

Step 6: Check special teams

Kick returns, field goals, punts, and field position can completely change a playoff game.

This approach produces a much more accurate picture than searching for one headline statistic.

A Practical Player-by-Player Summary

Seattle Seahawks

Sam Darnold: 12/17 passing, 124 yards, one touchdown, no interceptions, 110.9 passer rating.

Kenneth Walker III: 19 carries, 116 yards, three touchdowns, plus three receptions for 29 yards.

Cooper Kupp: Five receptions for 60 yards on five targets.

Jaxon Smith-Njigba: Three receptions for 19 yards and one touchdown.

Rashid Shaheed: 27 rushing yards on two carries and a 95-yard kickoff return touchdown.

Ernest Jones IV: One interception.

San Francisco 49ers

Brock Purdy: 15/27 passing, 140 yards, no touchdowns, one interception, plus 37 rushing yards.

Christian McCaffrey: 11 carries for 35 yards and five receptions for 39 yards.

Jake Tonges: Five receptions for 59 yards.

Jauan Jennings: Two receptions for 23 yards.

Jordan James: Six carries for 28 yards and one reception for seven yards.

Mac Jones: Two completions on four attempts for four yards.

The Bigger Lesson From the Match

The most important takeaway from this matchup is that dominant football does not always require dominant numbers in every category.

Seattle’s passing yardage was not enormous.

The Seahawks converted only four of 10 third downs.

Their defense recorded only two sacks.

Yet they won 41-6.

Why?

Because the team won the categories that had the greatest impact on the result.

Seattle ran the ball efficiently.

Seattle scored touchdowns.

Seattle created turnovers.

Seattle avoided turnovers.

Seattle produced a special teams touchdown.

Seattle prevented San Francisco from reaching the end zone.

That is complementary football in its clearest form.

Why the Final Score Was Not Just About Kenneth Walker

Walker deserves the largest share of the offensive spotlight, but describing the result as simply a “Kenneth Walker game” would undersell Seattle’s overall performance.

Shaheed’s opening kickoff return immediately changed field position and the scoreboard.

Darnold protected the football.

Kupp consistently converted his targets.

Smith-Njigba scored a receiving touchdown.

The defense forced turnovers and fourth-down failures.

The running game repeatedly created manageable situations.

The special teams unit produced a touchdown.

Every phase contributed.

That is why the final result was so one-sided.

What the Stats Say About Both Teams

The numbers paint two very different pictures.

Seattle looked like a team that knew exactly how it wanted the game to unfold.

San Francisco looked like a team forced to react.

Seattle’s 175 rushing yards gave the offense control.

San Francisco’s 108 rushing yards were not enough to establish the same control.

Seattle’s zero turnovers protected its lead.

San Francisco’s three turnovers made a comeback extremely difficult.

Seattle’s three rushing touchdowns created separation.

San Francisco’s zero touchdowns left little margin for error.

The difference was not one statistic.

It was the accumulation of several advantages.

Final Verdict on Seahawks vs 49ers Match Player Stats

The most useful conclusion from seahawks vs 49ers match player stats is that Seattle’s 41-6 victory was built on efficiency, ball security, rushing dominance, and complementary play rather than massive quarterback volume.

Kenneth Walker III was the clear offensive star with 116 rushing yards and three touchdowns. His 29 receiving yards pushed his total production to 145 yards from scrimmage.

Sam Darnold was highly efficient, completing 12 of 17 passes for 124 yards and a touchdown without throwing an interception.

Cooper Kupp provided reliable receiving production with five catches for 60 yards on five targets.

Rashid Shaheed delivered one of the game’s most important plays with a 95-yard kickoff return touchdown.

On defense, Seattle forced three turnovers, including an interception by Ernest Jones IV, while holding San Francisco to just six points.

For the 49ers, Brock Purdy produced 140 passing yards and 37 rushing yards, but the offense could not turn those yards into touchdowns. Christian McCaffrey added 74 yards from scrimmage but was held to 35 rushing yards. Jake Tonges led San Francisco’s receiving group with 59 yards.

The most revealing statistic may be the turnover margin. Seattle finished at zero turnovers while San Francisco committed three. Add 175 Seattle rushing yards, three rushing touchdowns, and the opening kickoff return score, and the 41-6 result becomes much easier to understand.

For anyone studying seahawks vs 49ers match player stats, the central lesson is simple: the most valuable numbers are the ones that explain how possessions became points. Yardage matters, but efficiency, turnovers, touchdowns, and field position often determine who actually wins.

Frequently Asked Questions

Who was the best player in the Seahawks vs 49ers game?

Kenneth Walker III was the standout player. He rushed for 116 yards and three touchdowns on 19 carries and added 29 receiving yards.

How did Brock Purdy perform against the Seahawks?

Purdy completed 15 of 27 passes for 140 yards, with no touchdowns and one interception. He also rushed five times for 37 yards.

How did Sam Darnold perform against the 49ers?

Darnold completed 12 of 17 passes for 124 yards and one touchdown without an interception. His passer rating was 110.9.

How many rushing yards did Kenneth Walker III have?

Walker finished with 116 rushing yards on 19 carries, averaging 6.1 yards per carry. He scored three rushing touchdowns.

Who led the 49ers in receiving?

Jake Tonges led San Francisco with five receptions for 59 yards on six targets. Christian McCaffrey also caught five passes, gaining 39 yards.

What was the biggest statistical difference between the teams?

The turnover margin was one of the biggest differences. Seattle committed zero turnovers while San Francisco committed three. Seattle also dominated rushing production, 175 yards to 108.

Conclusion

The seahawks vs 49ers match player stats from the January 18, 2026 NFC Divisional Playoff show why football analysis needs more than a final score or a single player line.

Seattle won 41-6 because multiple parts of the team worked together. Kenneth Walker III supplied 116 rushing yards and three touchdowns. Sam Darnold delivered efficient, mistake-free quarterback play. Cooper Kupp provided dependable receiving production. Rashid Shaheed gave Seattle an immediate seven points with a 95-yard kickoff return touchdown. The defense forced three turnovers and kept San Francisco out of the end zone.

San Francisco had individual production, particularly from Brock Purdy, Christian McCaffrey, and Jake Tonges, but those contributions did not translate into enough points. Three turnovers, zero touchdowns, and limited rushing efficiency made it extremely difficult for the 49ers to compete after falling behind early.

The deeper lesson is that the best player-stat analysis connects individual numbers to game context. Walker’s 116 rushing yards mattered because they came with three touchdowns. Darnold’s 124 passing yards mattered because he generated them efficiently and protected the ball. Purdy’s 140 passing yards mattered less because San Francisco could not convert possessions into touchdowns.

That is the clearest way to understand the numbers behind Seattle’s 41-6 playoff victory.